That's weird. There's no changes to Purge mentioned, or anything behind the scenes that would be likely to cause it. What attachments did you try purging (and are you sure about the enemy controlled bit)? Please check the console when reporting issues, as mentioned here. Helps the devs track down any potential issue.
There are some new cards coming that have purge effects (Purging Burst and Purging Strike), so they may be touching that code. But first I'd double check that it's failing on enemy controlled attachments. Speaking of new cards:
Yes I am sure I tried removing what it should remove and no effect. Sry wasn't aware of the console bit, but Jon was able to find that I guess. Glad to have helped.
What would an "unbiased" map look like? I think the idea is a fallacy. If something with lots of blocking terrain is biased, then a big open field is also biased. The idea that there is a perfect balance somewhere between the two where neither step warriors or control wizards would have any advantage is silly, and even if such a thing did exist players would just invent a new deck type which was better capable of exploiting that sort of map. I see no problem with them varying the types of maps. I have played one wizard, two warriors for quite a bit now, but I am not that deck, nor would I want to play a game where my deck would be static from now until the end of time. Varying the maps forces us to try out new cards, to tweak our builds, to adapt. New items and content is incredibly difficult and time consuming to make. Yes, it will come eventually, and undoubtedly shake up the metagame when it does. But in the meantime I appreciate that they haven't made us play on the same maps day in and out since September.
Just because there is no "perfect" balance, doesn't mean you cannot design a map in a way that there is a clear advantage to any one class or race. Making relatively balanced maps is not as difficult as people like to say it is. It's just a combination of creativity, math, common sense and testing. We already have many maps that are very nicely balanced. The thing is that many maps are specifically designed to try to change meta by giving advantage to for example warriors (narrow corridors, Gladius Wall), wizards (one victory square, open space and impassable terrain, Celestial Koi) or even elves (only race that reaches victory square with their default movement) etc.
In my opinion, this new rotation have 2 maps that favours wizards teams and 2 maps that favours warriors teams. So I think it is balanced. Favours doesn't mean that they can't lose on that maps.
There is still the matter of having the game treating you as if you forfeited a match by adding a minute to your queue time if you lose a match too quickly.
Not sure where to post this as I can't find the text relating to the issue, but weren't MP match-ups meant to be relaxed somewhat? I still find that I only play a small group of 4 or 5 people every day. Yet strangely there are people around my rank that I have never played in 600 matches. How can this be when others I'm playing 3 and 4 times per day.
Maybe they play at different times of the day than you? Or queue-dodge... I've seen matches being played with over 600 difference in rating between the participants so surely that should be enough to give more opponent variety to players of all rankings. Maybe your steady partners just play so much and are so close in ranking to you the system always finds one of them to put against you before it has a chance to widen the ranking search bracket? How often do the opponents repeat? What is the shortest time between matches against the same opponent for you? Maybe the minimum time should be made longer to give more variety in situations like this.
One example that springs to mind is Flaxative. I know that Flaxative doesn't avoid opponents, but I've never played him and our rankings are very, very close. I'm often on at the same time. There are other examples, but I can't confirm they don't game-select (though I don't think anyone would need to game-select to not play me). I haven't timed it, but I'd estimate the shortest time between the same opponent as being 20-30 mins. I don't play vs GM opponents so it's possible that in some of these instances I would have been playing Cardotron instead, but that's not an ideal solution either. I think it's possible the matching rules are still a little too strict. And FWIW I have no interest in wanting to beat up on lower ranked opponents, but to give lower ranked opponents their credit my toughest matches yesterday were vs an opponent ranked 300 less than myself.
You can see your recent game history if you're in a guild from Farbs' site. If you're not, you can still see your matches against the guilded lilies. You can see the repeat time from there. What nick do you use in MP, if you want to share that? It would help in analyzing the situation.
If the allowed ranking difference was widened further, it could lead to more player dissatisfaction as the current observed difference of over 600 already feels like quite a lot. Would it really be satisfying for either player if a 1,700 player was playing a 900 player? Maybe there's something else in play in your case which is preventing you from getting more variety in opponents.
D'oh, I only just realized you can of course more easily see the shortest opponent repeat time by clicking the "Results" icon in MP and then the "Mine" button. Comparing the "Date" time stamps yields the elapsed time between repeats.
Usually when I am on I am just chatting in the lobby, or sometimes playing peasant. I play very little PvP actually. My total games is just over 50 since Farbs released his stats site.
